Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12930853›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2003

Bach to the future: response to: Extending preimplantation genetic diagnosis: medical and non-medical uses.

R Ashcroft

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

R AshcroftMedical Ethics Unit, Department of Primary Health Care and General Practice, Imperial College London, Reynolds Building, St Dunstan's Road, London W6 8RP, UK. r.ashcroft@ic.ac.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Professor Robertson sketches an elegant framework for policy evaluation and regulation of the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for various medical, medical related, and non-medical purposes. In criticism of his position, I argue that the distinction between policy and ethics upon which his argument relies is highly unstable, and the approach taken to ethical evaluation of particular parental interests leaves open many issues which the policy approach would hope to exclude. In conclusion I argue that while his position ultimately fails, the onus is on his critics to come up with a viable and satisfying alternative.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthGenetic TestingHealth PolicyHearingHistocompatibility TestingHumansMusicParentsPreimplantation DiagnosisSex PreselectionUnited KingdomAnalytical ApproachGenetics and Reproduction

Identifiers

PMID12930853
PMCPMC1733778

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.